Tweet
Non OT discussion seems to lead to discussion and not sideways before a dozen posts are in .
I to think DJT is drawing out the banners.
-g
-
2nd
Non OT discussion seems to lead to discussion and not sideways before a dozen posts are in .
I to think DJT is drawing out the banners.
-gIf ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
-Samuel Adams -
Doesn't matter. What legitimate cause do they have to ban bump stocks, magazines, or any weapon? All human beings possess an intrinsic right to the most effective means of self defense, and that's up to the individual to determine what that may be, not some power hungry bureaucrat.Comment
-
I will not argue the point you make. That though did cross my mind first.
As a side note: I don't care about bump stocks, they're useless other than for fun. I support peoples rights to by what the hell they want, needs not withstanding. I guess I'm just jaded to the overreaching Kali gov and hearing about "what do you need this for" by people who don't know what the heck they are talking about nor do they care to.
I am more afraid of another compromise with our 2A that will just embolden the left to keep reaching for more.
Do bump stocks matter? It absolutely does when the commies taste blood. Just my opinion but I have had mud thrown on my face before so a grain of salt and all that.
Originally posted by superhondaz50Originally posted by beermanComment
-
Great idea voting 3rd party , thats whats done in California and look how free we are !
Regarding bumpstocks this President has not failed on any promise he made during the election and I trust him 100% !
Personally I believe bumpstocks are for the moron shooter who has ZERO marksmanship skills and if it's politically advantageous to throw them under the bus, maybe those folks will learn to shoot instead of wasting ammo once a year or whatever!
If bumpstocks are banned hopefully we get something valuable in return! That seems to be the style of President Trump !Last edited by ja308; 02-20-2018, 6:53 PM.Comment
-
I'd be curious to know...
1) How many of you oppose abortion and if so, why? Is the right to life more important for an unborn child than it is for a living one?
2) How many of you have lost loved ones in a mass shooting? Would your attitude be different if one of the dead kids was yours?
3) Why hasn't anyone talked about more thorough background checks so that idiots like Cruz are less likely to fall through the cracks?
There's what, over 100 people dead in mass shootings made possible by your beloved ARs and all you seem to be able to think about is your rights and your range toys. Not a word about the dead? Not even prayers?
I agree that it's not the gun, it's the shooter, and that Cruz could just as easily have used another weapon, though it would have been much more difficult for him to kill 17 and injure many more with a knife. The fact remains, he shouldn't have had a gun - any gun - in the first place and especially not a semiauto.
Whether you accept it or not, your "my way or the highway" attitude does not engender much sympathy for allowing private ownership of ARs. So here's a suggestion - do something constructive and figure out how to keep dangerous range toys out of the hands of people like Cruz. Seems to me like requiring the same kind of background check used in Canada for a possession and acquisition license would be a good starting point.Comment
-
The "my way or the highway" attitude that I have is more like an unwavering understanding that all humans are created equal and have the same inalienable rights, or something like that. Would background checks keep guns out of the hands of some would be killers? Maybe. But do you trust the same government that plays by its own set of rules to run a fair and responsible licensing scheme? I sure don't, but maybe I'm a bit skeptical since I actually pay attention to what they say and do.
If the politicians are really serious about protecting our kids, they'll come up with the same solution that they use to protect themselves, legitimately trained and armed security. After all, we use guns to protect our banks and courthouses, but not the country's children? Which is more precious?Comment
-
I personally don't have a need for a bump stock nor would I ever get one, however, if there's wiggle room in a bump stock ban to include more than just those bump stocks then I can't support it.Comment
-
That's not my concern. I could care less about bump stocks. I'm more concerned with a governing body, made of people mind you, that believe that they can keep other people from determining and implementing their best means of self defense.
In regard to law enforcement and the type of weapons that they use in comparison to civilians, they use fully automatic weapons. Us mere citizens do not have that option.Last edited by Aeneas; 02-20-2018, 8:20 PM.Comment
-
I'm loathe to listen to Feinstein on anything. However, she has a point...
According to ATF's Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices...Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a statement underscoring her contention that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives does not have authority to ban bump stocks, and that "legislation is the only answer."
"The agency made this clear in a 2013 letter to Congress, writing that ‘stocks of this type are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes,’" Feinstein said.
“If ATF tries to ban these devices after admitting repeatedly that it lacks the authority to do so, that process could be tied up in court for years," Feinstein said, "and that would mean bump stocks would continue to be sold."
"If you want these devices off the street," Feinstein told Trump, "call congressional Republicans and tell them to stop blocking our bill.”
Note that they also say that 'understanding' is based on the NFA definition of 'machine gun'...“Bump fire” stocks (bump stocks) are devices used with a semiautomatic firearm to increase the firearm's cyclic firing rate to mimic nearly continuous automatic fire. Since 2008, ATF has issued a total of 10 private letters in which it classified various bump stock devices to be unregulated parts or accessories, and not machineguns or machinegun conversion devices as defined in section 5845(b) of the NFA or section 921(a)(23) of the GCA.
Bold emphasis mine.The NFA defines “machinegun” as any weapon which: “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
The question becomes whether one is 'comfortable' with a bureaucratic agency unilaterally redefining legislative terms; whatever the political strategy.Comment
-
1) I don't. No, but it depends on the viability of a fetus. I believe in science not whimsy.
2) I have. No.
3) Because the NICS is completely broken and around 92% inaccurate. The government couldn't do anything to stop a guy when they were told he would shoot up a school multiple times.
Why are you even here if you don't care about gun rights?while (bullets > 0 && target == 1){fire == 1;}Comment
-
^
yeap enough with this virture signaling BS its getting pretty rampant on this forum, disgustingLast edited by Leel; 02-20-2018, 9:56 PM.Comment
.
.
.
There are currently 14286 users online. 127 members and 14159 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 10:39 PM on 02-14-2026.
Comment